At 07:05 PM 4/19/98 +0200, Rolf wrote:
>The theory that each word represents a particular concept with a particular
>meaning (though with fuzzy edges) imply that the role of the context is to
>make visible the part of the concept signalled by the word, which the
>author wants to stress. So the context does not induce new meaning, but
>only make visible a part of the meaning which already is there. Because the

In reading the <book>Stranger in a Strange Land</> and coming across the
term "Grok," I thought I knew what it meant, which was "to ken beyond ken."
But later, when the Martians determine to annihilate the earth, and "grok"
it to the fullest, I was taught by the context a new meaning beyond the
meaning I was taught by the author. Hence, context does deliver new
meaning, or at least, nuance, which lends to new meaning. Grok was such a
wonderful, powerful, kenning word, until the awesomeness of the ultimate
grok (annihilation, i.e., holocaust) was presented by new context -- it was
really such a shattering of all the meaning that had preceded it, that I
had to reevaluate the kind of power transmitted in the word, Grok.
Further, I believe the author intended that revelation to come late, to be
unsettling -- right after the scene where the stranger is killed in a
shotgun crucifixion -- a stranger we had grown to love (however we
interpret that word) and yet, a stranger who we must also reevaluate in
light of the reevaluation confronting us in the meaning of the groking of
the martian elders (the impending detruction (sanitization) of the earth
and its inhabitants, in a nanosecond, by thought).
Hmmm. Didn't mean to go on so long, or speak to questions regarding fileo
/ agape -- just to textual theory, author intent, and reader dynamics (with
the assumption that fiction and drama does play a role in Greek (manu)scripts).

---
May God's blessing be in all your relationships.
[Adapted from Lakota]